London’s building safety

Andrew Dismore: What has been the impact on the built environment of the Government’s apparent inaction on Londoners’ safety and on the finances of the London Fire Brigade?

The Mayor: Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Thank you, Chair. London’s built environment is extremely complex and I continue to be concerned that the Government has failed to grasp the scale of the building safety crisis. MHCLG has approximately 62,000 premises within London it considers may be higher-risk, which fall in the scope of the new Building Safety Regulator.
Although the Fire Safety Bill has nearly completed its progress through Parliament the impact it will have on resourcing and the demand on the London Fire Brigade’s (LFB) budget is still not fully known, as the detail in the related secondary legislation is still unavailable. The LFB expects that a more stringent regime of control and monitoring will bring with it additional duties for fire and rescue services, and that the clarification of the extent of the Fire Safety Order in the residential environment will add to its audit work. Previous national assumptions on LFB’s funding were based on the risk environment prior to the Grenfell Tower fire. The Government now needs to seriously consider what resourcing the LFB needs in the new risk environment.
While we press the Government for the funding required to address these challenges, I am doing all I can to protect the budgets of our most important frontline services, asking the LFB and MPS to find the smallest percentage savings across the GLA Group, and despite building safety being primarily a matter for building regulation I am seeking to lead by example and implementing bold reforms to improve building safety in London.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that answer. Mr Mayor, would you agree that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase2 has laid bare truly shocking accounts of what can only be described as deceit and criminal neglect by those building companies responsible for the cladding on Grenfell, who were utterly and arrogantly dismissive of such building regulations and controls as were in force at the time, weak though they may have been? The consequences continue to grow, with thousands of residents trapped in dangerous homes and facing bills likely to bankrupt them.
And it is not just dangerous cladding, is it? [London] Fire Commissioner Andy Roe said, “We do not know the full limit of what has happened inside the built environment over the past ten to 15 years”, and the Deputy Mayor [for Fire and Resilience] told us yesterday at the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning (FREP) Committee that, “We are learning more about the problems with the built environment on an almost daily basis”. Do you agree with those propositions and what do you think the consequences of that are?

Sadiq Khan: I think the concern the LFB has is that the goalposts have moved in relation to what they thought was the built environment and what the reality is. Some of the evidence we have seen at Phase2 of the Inquiry does beggar belief, and it demonstrates the consequences of profit before people and corners being cut. You are aware, because of your experience, of the impact this has on the LFB’s work and the additional pressures on them, but you are also aware of the difference resources not being there makes. That is why we are lobbying to get more resources, and you will be aware of the importance of the legislation as it goes through Parliament.

Andrew Dismore: Thanks for that. It is the case, is it not, that the Conservative Government has been increasingly exposed as falling down on the job? They not only voted down the Labour amendment to the
Fire Safety Bill which would have brought all of the Grenfell Inquiry Phase1 recommendations into law, their post-Grenfell record of inaction means there remain an unknown number of buildings with dangerous cladding across London. MHCLG’s best estimate so far is 62,000 dangerous buildings.
It is the case, is it not, that the Conservative Government’s failure means that the burden on the Fire Brigade, apart from the demands of COVID-19, has grown, as they are now expected to monitor and keep safe a built environment with previously unidentified risks, including inspecting over 8,000 high-rise buildings - which they have nearly completed - and an ever-growing number of buildings with waking watches? It is now over 700, and they have to be inspected regularly. That is costing the residents £12million per month in total on what the Ministry said at the time was an interim measure. It is still ‘interim’ three and a half years after Grenfell due to the delays in remediation.
How much funding from the Government has the Brigade received for these post-Grenfell extra demands? Is it fair that Government is forcing the Brigade to shoulder the costs of monitoring the risks that their poor building regulations have left?

Sadiq Khan: You are right to remind all of us that the consequence of what you have said is that the job of a London firefighter has never been harder and more challenging. In relation to financial support, the LFB has received very little. We are talking about single-digit millions. We have asked for a certain amount of money, we have received grant funding of £2.3million for the building risk review programme, and £3.2million for the protection uplift programme, and so we are asking for further monies as well. It is really important that Government resources the additional responsibilities that there are in the LFB for the reasons you have alluded to.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you.

TfL finances

Alison Moore: Given that the fares freeze equated to £640 million over four years, less than the monthly TfL running costs, and you inherited Transport for London with a £1.5bn deficit, which you have reduced by 71% to £200 million, do claims that you have “racked up £9.56 billion in wasteful spending at Transport for London” add up?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. The idea that I ever racked up £9.56billion of wasteful spending at TfL could not be further from the truth. This is a fantasy figure plucked out of thin air. I am aware that this ridiculous claim has been made by the Conservative mayoral candidate and I am aware, too, that he has been busy leafletting homes across London making this assertion. I note he was too embarrassed to put his name on the leaflet, though, instead making it look like an official TfL publication. I have to say that it really does say something when a candidate chooses to distance his campaign not only from his own party but from his own name.
Let me get the record straight and make sure that we use this morning as an opportunity to set it out accurately. The candidate claims that £5.2billion was wasted on Crossrail. He is categorically wrong. I have stepped up to provide funding when the Government as co-sponsor washed its hands of the project. That is not wasteful. It is essential for London.
He claims that £640million was wasted on the fares freeze. Tell that to the Londoners who experienced a 42% hike in fares under the previous Mayor and were crying out for more affordable travel. He claims there are more TfL staff with salaries over £100,000 in 2020 than in 2019. That is just plain wrong. There are 17% fewer.
If he wants to talk about wasteful spending, let us look at how City Hall was run by the previous Mayor. £45million was wasted on a Garden Bridge that was never built, £280million on buses with no opening windows, operating costs for TfL that went up every year, a £7billion increase in TfL borrowing and 4,600 more people employed by the organisation at the end of his second term than at the beginning.
My record pre-COVID: a 71% reduction in TfL’s operating deficit, a 13% increase in cash balances, £3.5million saved weekly on reductions in the use of agency and consultancy staff, a freeze on senior staff salaries and an overall reduction in the staff headcount of 5,300. I can hold my head up high when it comes to having delivered financial discipline and rigour in TfL.
COVID has, of course, decimated the finances of the public sector and many in the private sector including the privatised train operating companies and TfL. Londoners know this. They can see the empty seats on our Tubes and buses. As much as my political opponents are trying to pretend otherwise, this is the truth and they would do well to stop taking Londoners for fools.

Alison Moore: Thank you very much, MrMayor. Can I come back to this issue of the debt interest? The claim is that you have wasted £1.5billion over four years on debt interest. Would you agree that most of that debt is related to the £9.1billion in debt you inherited from your predecessor and, in fact, the extra interest that has resulted from the borrowing you have taken out is just £124million? Is that correct?

Sadiq Khan: It is. This gives me a chance to give a history lesson to some Members of the Assembly. The first Mayor borrowed £2billion to invest in TfL. The second Mayor borrowed more than £7billion to invest in TfL. What I am doing is paying off the interest on the money borrowed by the previous two Mayors.

Alison Moore: In that £124million that you are paying in interest on your debt, can you highlight some of the things that you have funded by borrowing you have authorised so that Londoners can judge whether those projects were a waste or not?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for your question. We are modernising four lines – this is really important - to get trains running more frequently. We have major station upgrades because of the money that we have borrowed. There are track renewals. As mentioned in a previous question, we have new stock and signalling on the Piccadilly line. Something that I care very passionately about is the step-free projects that have benefited colleagues across London. Those are some examples of the fruits of the money that we have invested in TfL, as well as paying off interest on the money borrowed by the previous guy.

Alison Moore: I have one final question because I am quite tight on time. How much of that debt you inherited related to the fantasy Garden Bridge, the fantasy airport and those new Routemasters that needed to be retrofitted?

Sadiq Khan: I can disaggregate for you if you like, but we are paying off the money that was spent by the previous Mayor on projects that did not go anywhere. Where is this Thames Estuary Airport we were promised? Where is this Garden Bridge? We have fixed some of the mistakes he made. The windows now open on those vanity buses. It is really important that we learn the lessons from the mistakes made by the previous Mayor.

Alison Moore: Thank you very much. I will leave it there, Chair. Thank you.

Delay to the London Plan

Nicky Gavron: It’s now almost a year to the day that you submitted your London Plan to the Secretary of State for approval and yet they have still not signed it off. What is the impact of this delay on London and on Londoners?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I share your concern about the delay to the publication of the London Plan and the impact this is having on London. That is why I wrote to the Secretary of State [for Housing, Communities and Local Government] on 9December [2020] advising him that I intend to approve a new London Plan on 21December and submit that to him.
I received the Planning Inspectorate’s report and recommendations last October [2019] and last December I submitted my intent to publish to the Secretary of State. I responded in a timely and constructive way to his initial directions. Now, over a year after I submitted my Plan, he has responded to my letter with further directions. We are working as closely as possible to understand the impact of these directions, including further extensive discussions with Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials.
The Plan I intend to approve on 21December [2020] must be agreed by the Secretary of State before it can be published. I hope he will do so with the sense of urgency he referred to in his response to me this week. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State has held up the progress of the Plan for so long.
I know the industry, boroughs and community groups want the Plan published without delay. Currently, every planning application must be considered against two London Plans and the Secretary of State’s directions. This creates significant and unnecessary complication, uncertainty and pressure on scarce planning department capacity. At least 25 London planning authorities are currently progressing local plans and similar documents merely to deliver good-quality affordable housing, plan and deliver infrastructure and support our economy. This task is being made much more difficult by the ongoing delay to the London Plan.

Nicky Gavron: Last week when he wrote to you, the Secretary of State [The Rt Hon] RobertJenrick [MP] said that moving towards adoption, he recognised that it would help to drive, he said, housing delivery, economic recovery and sustainable development across London. He also said that he shared your sense of urgency. This is the same Minister who has sat on the London Plan for a year, piled delay upon delay, during the same year has brought out a huge number of disruptive new changes to the planning system, in a year of unparalleled uncertainty.
As we say, on top of this, boroughs and developers and communities are having to work between two London Plans and that is on top of everything else and the uncertainty about the planning reforms. How has that impacted on the confidence, do you think, of developers and boroughs to get building?

Sadiq Khan: It is a real challenge. You speak to developers like I do and also to planners. It is the uncertainty. What developers want is certainty and they are lacking that. They have to look at two London Plans. They have to be cognisant of his directions and also worried about calling in things if he is unhappy with them as well. It is the opposite of devolution. This is a really good example of the Government overcentralising things, “Whitehall knows best”, but also levelling down as far as London is concerned. If the country is to prosper they need London to continue to punch well above our weight, and I think the last 12months have shown a really poor response from the Government. I am hoping that there will be a renewed sense of urgency to make up lost ground because what we need to have is clarity, certainty, and the pro-good growth agenda that our London Plan would deliver.

Nicky Gavron: Right. On that note, then, I just want to ask you something else. Yesterday there was a ministerial announcement saying that the Homes England agency was going to play a role in London now in accelerating housing delivery. Homes England was devolved to London, the whole role. Is that not going to undermine your Housing and Land division? Is that not going to, in a sense, roll back devolution? Is that not levelling down?

Sadiq Khan: It is another opportunity for us to give colleagues on the Assembly a history lesson. London was part of the previous Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and you will be aware that about eight years ago we were devolved issues around housing in London. The Mayor was devolved those powers.
It appears from the announcement yesterday - we are not clear what he meant by this - that he is now asking Homes England to take over some of the role that we have. We are trying to investigate exactly what he meant by that, whether he misspoke or what he meant, because London has far exceeded other parts of the country when it comes to housing starts and houses being completed, but also the genuinely affordable housing that Londoners need. You would have thought that a Government would be trying to emulate our success story rather than taking powers away from us. I hope they are not playing party politics and levelling down, but I am more than happy to share our expertise with colleagues across the country if they need assistance in relation to more genuinely affordable homes, more council homes, and how to be pro-good growth. Last year, you will be aware, we began more homes than in the history of these powers being devolved. You would have thought they would want to copy us rather than stifle us.

Nicky Gavron: Right. Thank you for that answer. I am out of time, Mr Mayor, but thank you.

Temporary Road Changes - Consultations

Keith Prince: Now that an end is in sight from Covid-19 restrictions, how soon will TfL be either cancelling or consulting on the various temporary changes to London’s roads that have been introduced since March 2020?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Last week saw an amazing milestone in our fight against the pandemic with the start of the largest immunisation programme the NHS has ever run. While there is light at the end of the tunnel, my message is clear: we still have a long winter ahead of us and we must all continue to play our part to keep ourselves and others safe. Relaxing too early would be dangerous. The Prime Minister has said that the tier system will be in place until at least spring next year [2021] and we expect social distancing rules to be here for some time.
The Streetspace programme helps people to comply with these rules, as well as supporting a green and healthy recovery. By helping to clean up London’s air and providing better cycle routes and safer places to walk, TfL and the boroughs are doing their bit to help London build back better.
The programme is working. Cycling is the only mode of transport for which more journeys are being made than this time last year. At Colliers Wood, where protection has been added to the existing cycle lane, the number of cyclists has increased by 35% during the week and 150% at the weekend. On ParkLane, hundreds of cyclists an hour are using the new lanes. On Kensington High Street, before the Council removed the new cycle lanes, the number of people riding bikes had doubled. In the new year, Londoners will start to see the second tranche of the Government’s Active Travel Fund to come to light, meaning more Londoners will be able to walk and cycle in safe, low-traffic, cleaner streets.
I know not all feedback has been positive, but the temporary traffic orders used to put these schemes in place allow councils and TfL to flex and adapt schemes as they bed in to ensure they support their communities. That has been done for some schemes already. TfL is constantly monitoring and gathering feedback to help make decisions about the next steps for Streetspace schemes. Consultation will be required to make any of the temporary schemes permanent.
My Transport Strategy sets out an aim for 80% of all journeys to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041. Streetspace has accelerated the pace at which we are moving towards that target. I am not willing to start unpicking this process.

Keith Prince: Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am not challenging the fact that some of these schemes have been beneficial. In fact, some of them I would openly support. Again, I am not criticising, Mr Mayor, I am just trying to get a commitment from you that there will be proper consultation around these. Now, you know - and we can argue over what the reasons are - some of these schemes were put in very quickly, some for the right reasons, some because of Government pressure. At the end of the day, what I am asking, Mr Mayor, is for you to give a commitment.
We acknowledge these are temporary schemes. There will be a time, as you quite rightly say, I think, in spring, where we will be looking to relax some of the conditions and so on. Would that not be the right time, Mr Mayor, to conduct a proper consultation on whether or not to make these schemes permanent? Some of them probably do deserve to remain permanent, but there are others which we could argue over and others which the residents really object to. I am just asking you, Mr Mayor, to give a commitment that there will be proper consultation, at a given point, on all these schemes.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, as is often the case, Assembly Member Prince and I are not very far apart. I think you are spot on. Some of these schemes have worked; some of them have not worked as well as we would like them to have done. We have to be honest about that. Some boroughs have been really good at adapting and adjusting where they have not worked, and some boroughs have taken the decision - we may disagree with it - to do a U-turn.
You are right. Before these schemes become permanent, it is right and proper there is proper consultation. The good news is that we will have had a period of time to see the benefits and disbenefits. I think it is perfectly proper for a borough to say, “Look, we have sucked it and seen. This is what it has been like for the last X months. We are now not going to do it, we are going to do it and tweak it, or carry it on, but let us consult local residents”. That is important and healthy.
I am not sure when it is going to be. Hopefully it will be spring [2021]. I think that is being quite optimistic. Why do I say that? The numbers I saw last night were that 140,000 people have received the vaccine so far. We have to roll it out across as much of the population as we can. That will take some time. Until we are sure we have controlled the virus and social distancing is not required I am not sure we can talk about the changes you would like to see, but I think we are not far apart.

Keith Prince: It is not changes I would like to see, it is what the residents and what the businesses want. As you say, I think spring is probably the time, but we are looking at a six-week consultation here. It would not hurt if you could give a commitment to say, “Yes, we will look at consulting around about springtime”. That will give us another six weeks. If at the end of the consultation you still think there is an argument for keeping these temporary schemes then that is for you to decide as Mayor, if indeed you are the Mayor at that point.

Sadiq Khan: We have to very careful about making false predictions. This Prime Minister promised that this virus would be over by Christmas, did he not? Remember that? You are asking me to --

Keith Prince: Let us not get into what promises people make and do not keep. You are on sticky
ground --

Sadiq Khan: Did he or did he not --

Keith Prince: Come on, we are working together on this. Come on.

Sadiq Khan: Did he or did he not say that? Did he say that?

Keith Prince: Did you promise 2million trees, Mr Mayor?

Sadiq Khan: Did he say that? Did he say that?

Keith Prince: Did you promise 2million trees?

Sadiq Khan: Let us agree, then, that he said that and it did not happen. For those reasons, I think it is very unwise to predict, as you are seeking to do, that the virus will be over by spring. I disagree with you. It will not be over by spring.

Keith Prince: I did not say it would over by spring, Mr Mayor, I did not say that.

Sadiq Khan: I think the virus will still be with us.

Keith Prince: I agreed with you when you said spring is when it is likely to be reducing. I am agreeing with you. You said spring. I am agreeing with you about spring.

Sadiq Khan: In my previous answer I explained I think spring is too early because I think the virus will still be with us. I think we will be lucky to have the vaccine completely rolled out by spring, but before any of these schemes become permanent there needs to be a consultation and we will work with boroughs to ensure there is a consultation.

Keith Prince: OK, Mr Mayor, I am going to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed. Merry Christmas, by the way.

Sadiq Khan: You too.

Keith Prince: I love your Christmas decorations. Thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, that is appreciated.

Navin Shah: Right. Assembly Member Dr Moore, you have a supplementary, please?

Policing and Politics

Peter Whittle: Do you think it is ever appropriate for senior officers of the Metropolitan Police to engage in matters of political controversy?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. MPS officers carry out their duties without fear or favour, and understand that their role is to protect the public. The Commissioner is very clear that she is a police officer, not a politician, as are the rest of her senior team. In these trying times, they are doing a difficult job exceptionally well. The MPS is responding to changing rules and regulations and adapting its approach, often with very little warning, to ensure that Londoners are kept safe.
Despite the changing regulations, the MPS has adopted a consistent approach throughout the pandemic to protect Londoners and help stop the spread of the virus. Officers have done this by engaging with people who might be in breach of the rules, explaining the rules to them, encouraging people to follow them and only using enforcement as a last resort. The police have also had to manage a large number of public order events, even as the rules around gatherings change repeatedly. These include over 500 protests and marches between January and November this year and numerous unlicensed music events. Despite these challenges, officers have been able to bear down on violent crime, including county lines, by targeting the most violent offenders through the Violence Suppression Unit and other work that they have been doing.
These are times where questions of operational policing will overlap with wider political debates. Senior officers are frequently asked about their views on the operational impact of complex issues, with lockdown restrictions and Brexit being two recent examples of this. In these situations, experienced officers understand the challenges and constraints of an operational environment and this can help to inform debate. Although officers will sometimes comment on the operational impact of current events, both I and the MPS senior command team are clear that it is my role to provide political leadership and theirs to deliver frontline policing services.

Peter Whittle: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor, for that answer. The point, really, here is that in my question I asked about controversial issues. To take the example of Assistant Commissioner NeilBasu [QPM], most recently he made remarks that what he called “disinformation” about COVID should maybe not be allowed to be disseminated. He has also, in the past, said that, for example, there is structural racism permeating every part of British society, and also most recently he said that obviously Britain should not leave the EU without a deal because this would be deleterious to security.
All of these things, Mr Mayor, you might well agree with. As you just said, you are a politician. It is expected of you. But these things, to me, entirely undermine the idea that the police are completely impartial in the way the Commissioner last week made clear to me in the [London Assembly] Plenary, when you were present. These are political statements. Whether you agree with them or not is neither here nor there. This is a very senior policeman, Mr Mayor, making extremely partisan --

Navin Shah: Your question, please.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I can understand the concern that the Assembly Member has in relation to a feeling that the police officers have views that are different to his. I suspect that what he [Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu QPM] was seeking to do - I have not seen the details - was respond to questions he was asked in relation to certain matters. I, for example, am aware of the concern he and I both have, him as a police officer and me as a politician, about false claims being used to radicalise people, and that may be what he was referring to. Similarly, his experience as an ethnic minority officer may be relevant in relation to --

Navin Shah: Mr Mayor, they are out of time now. Thank you very much. We will move on to the next question.

Future of City Hall

Tony Arbour: The departure of the Mayor and Assembly from City Hall puts the future of this iconic landmark at risk. Will you support a proposal for the building to be statutorily listed as being of architectural and historical importance?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. London is exceptionally rich in the heritage of its buildings. They form a key aspect of London’s historic environment and have enriched the lives of Londoners past and present.
There is a statutory system for listing buildings in England. Anyone can make a nomination and it is the responsibility of Historic England to assess any nominated buildings and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who makes the final decision. Historic England advises that it is unusual for buildings under 30 years old to be listed as they have yet to stand the test of time. Construction of City Hall commenced in 2000, which means that it is still some way off meeting this threshold.
Statutory listing is not the only way, though, for people to understand that a building is iconic or otherwise has important value for Londoners. For example, a number of architectural awards and programmes provide an avenue for the public recognition of buildings apart from the listing process. I am a programme partner of Open City and for many years City Hall has taken part in the annual Open House London event. This is an active way of celebrating the building and ensuring that it is shared with and appreciated by as wide an audience as possible. I would encourage the ongoing inclusion of the building in this event in the future even if it transfers to private usage.
I am sure that City Hall has a full life ahead of it, with the potential for a number of different incarnations. I am confident that good use will be made of the building for many years to come and that it will continue to have landmark status in the architectural vernacular of our city.

Tony Arbour: Thank you very much, MrMayor. I am extremely disappointed by your answer. Indeed, it is true that it is unusual for a building less than 30 years old to be listed, but there is provision for this to be done if they are of special architectural or historic interest. Nobody could doubt that City Hall is of special architectural interest. Although you and I may be ephemeral players in London government, London government is going to continue and City Hall will be a monument to London government if it survives. The listing of a building will ensure that it does survive. I do not share your confidence that this building - or rather the building where the Chair is, which is the current home of London government - will survive without some sort of protection. This is a relatively small building on an extremely valuable site. If it does not have that protection, there is a risk that it will go.
There cannot be a single person in London - certainly there cannot be a single person who is connected with London government - who does not believe that this is a building of architectural interest. They may not think it is beautiful. Secondly, there is no one who cannot believe that City Hall is already an important part of the landscape and it will be a dereliction of our duty - and I suggest your duty as incumbent Mayor - to ensure that this building survives. I would suggest to you that the way you can see that it survives is to apply to the Department [for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport] for this building to be listed. I have no doubt that a request from you - and, I have no doubt, supported by most Londoners - would be supported. Can I ask you, please, to take action, not hide behind the fact that it is unusual? Something that is unusual, in fact, is something which has considerable merit. Indeed, this may be a way in which you could be remembered.

Sadiq Khan: Can I say, Chair, that the Deputy Chairman raises really powerful points very persuasively. Can I discuss with him after this meeting what we can do working together to address the concerns he has? He raises really powerful points. As often, his experience is useful here. I am more than happy to work with him and the Assembly. He is right. Even though we may be leaving next year, this building has huge significance. Chair, this is a good example of me being persuaded by the Deputy Chairman. Can we take this away, Tony, and work on what we can do together?

Tony Arbour: Thank you very much, MrMayor. I am grateful to you.

Fraud and economic crime

Unmesh Desai: Are you confident the Met, working with partner organisations, provides a satisfactory response to victims of fraud in London?

The Mayor: Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Thank you, Chair. The response to fraud is a national issue requiring national solutions. Action Fraud, managed by the City of London Police, is the UK’s reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime and was this year the subject of an independent review by Sir CraigMackey [QPM, former Deputy Commissioner, MPS]. His report clearly highlighted the need to improve the experience of victims of fraud. Although the MPS is not specifically included in the report’s 15 recommendations, I fully support any action that results in a better service to victims and increased opportunities to catch criminals.
All victims of fraud from London can access practical and emotional support from the MOPAC-commissioned London victim and witness service. MOPAC also provides annual funding for the Economic Crime Victim Care Unit. Between January and October this year, it contacted over 15,000 victims. MOPAC and the MPS also support the National Police Digital Security Centre, which works with small and medium-sized enterprises to prevent cybercrime, including fraud, and the MPS has established the specialist Economic Crime Command to coordinate their response.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, Mr Mayor. As we approach Christmas, the last thing anyone wants is to be defrauded of their hard-earned money, yet we have heard serious concerns raised about the ability of Action Fraud, which you already referred to, the unit currently operated by the City of London Police, to deal with incidents that are reported. Some of these criticisms have been very severe. SirCraigMackey, looking into Action Fraud, said, “Fraud investigation in the UK needs a new future”. WaheedSaleem, the West Midlands Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, went even further. He said Action Fraud is inadequate, not fit for purpose, and needs a fundamental review as it no longer has the public’s confidence.
You have talked about what the MPS is doing, but at the same time we have seen an increase in fraud reports since the beginning of the pandemic and far greater amounts of money being lost as a result. Do you think that Action Fraud needs fundamental reform in order to improve the service provided to Londoners?

Sadiq Khan: Sir CraigMackey, who we know very well, made a number of recommendations which the City of London Police are going to implement. There is an implementation plan for that. MOPAC are engaged with City of London Police to understand the progress of this work and we are also working with the National Business Crime Centre to improve communication between the police and businesses. You are right, Sir Craig raised a number of concerns and that is why it is important we work closely with the City of London Police in relation to their Implementation Plan.

Unmesh Desai: I hope and I am sure you will keep a watch on this issue, because fraud is the fastest-growing area of crime in the UK, it accounts for one third of all crime, and reported fraud losses are approximately £2.3billion in the last financial year, affecting around 1million. On that note, Mr Mayor, during the first lockdown, volunteers were safely delivering advice to elderly and vulnerable residents in an effort to help prevent fraud. Whilst the police continue to be stretched, is the imaginative use of civilians, including COVID support groups, to help spread anti-fraud messages something you will be encouraging in the future?

Sadiq Khan: Can I just say firstly that it is absolutely despicable that elderly and vulnerable residents were targeted this way in relation to this crime? Yes, the MPS has continued to visit communities and physically deliver leaflets safely to raise awareness and give proper advice, and it is really important that we continue to do so.

Unmesh Desai: Going into the future, Mr Mayor, in any future Police and Crime Plan that I am sure you will be working on next year, do you think fraud should be part of a Police and Crime Plan for London?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, it is one of the things we will be looking into in relation to the next Police and Crime Plan. The nature of fraud is changing, as you will be aware, with 90% now cyber-enabled, and you have also reminded us of the increase in this area. The Chief Digital Officer, London’s first, is developing a Cybersecurity Strategy to help Londoners and businesses protect themselves, and you will be hearing more of this as and when it is ready to go.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you for those answers, Mr Mayor. I wish you well.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

Financial Performance

Shaun Bailey: Are you satisfied with your performance on financial and budgetary matters during your tenure?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. The GLA’s financial management is underpinned by a comprehensive budget process, given a clean bill of health by our external auditors in our latest accounts. It is subject to extensive scrutiny by the Assembly as well as consultation with the public. This process has successfully delivered a balanced budget on time year after year, with reserves maintained at prudent levels, demonstrated again in my consultation budget this week.
Since 2016, we have successfully utilised the GLA group’s budget to deliver for Londoners. This includes laying the foundations to fix London’s housing crisis by starting a record number of council homes, taking the boldest action of any city in the world to tackle air pollution, making transport more affordable for millions of Londoners, supporting the police in tackling crime in the face of huge Government cuts, and providing for the London Fire Brigade in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire.
This is a clear turnaround from the mess I inherited from my predecessor, who, amongst other things, closed 76 police stations and front counters, closed 10 fire stations, cut £100million from the London Fire Brigade, wasted £45million on a bridge that was never built, wasted £280million on a vanity bus with no opening windows, and increased TfL borrowing by £7billion.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on our city’s public finances this year, just as it has across the country. We are facing the perfect storm of increased costs associated with responding to the crisis, a collapse in revenue and no confirmed details of support from the Government. As a result, we will be forced to make significant cuts over the next two years. I will do everything I can to protect frontline services by making savings and using the reserves we prudently built up before the pandemic hit, even though the Assembly’s Budget and Performance Committee was sceptical about this.
The Government has a clear choice: invest in London’s economic recovery to avoid cuts and help families and communities get back on track or introduce a new era of austerity that will choke off growth and hit our public services, including TfL and the police, at the worst possible time.
There is no doubt, Chair, we face huge financial challenges, but I am confident in the financial management arrangements we have in place and I will continue to stand up for London.

Shaun Bailey: Good morning, MrMayor. Thank you for your answer. I want to concentrate on our finances going forward. While Londoners are worried about their jobs and making ends meet, even GLA staff, it has been widely reported that your senior adviser is based in a different time zone in San Francisco, working eight hours behind hardworking GLA staff. Why did you sign this off?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, you will be aware that I have to be very careful talking about staff members in relation to such matters, but what I can confirm is that the member of staff who is being referred to for personal reasons began working part-time for a short period of time and will be going back to full-time in the new year.

Shaun Bailey: Why did you sign this off? They are in a different time zone. Surely they cannot produce the work that we need done right now. You said we face great financial difficulty, which means that a member of staff - a very senior member of staff who is personally responsible for relationships with the Government - surely should be here doing the job.
Is it acceptable that your highly paid adviser, who is personally responsible for liaising with the Government, is based in San Francisco when we have a pandemic to deal with?

Sadiq Khan: We have many examples across government - central, regional and local - where staff for personal reasons have to work part-time or take time off. It is not unusual. It is really important that as a good employer we provide the flexibility to our staff. We, for example, have employment practices in relation to those members of staff who have babies early or, for example, those members of staff who have disabilities. That flexibility is really important in the modern world. Particularly this pandemic has shown the importance of having flexibility around working environments.
I am disappointed that people are seeking to make political points around us having the flexibility to give our staff part-time working arrangements for short periods of time before they return to full-time working.

Shaun Bailey: The point here, MrMayor, is that London needs all of its resources to make the best deal with the Government. You talked about the hard work being done, but surely your team is weakened when this individual is responsible for sign-off and they are eight hours behind.

Sadiq Khan: Let us compare and contrast me agreeing to a member of my staff going part-time to the Government giving a £45,000 pay increase to somebody who broke COVID rules by driving to Barnard Castle. I am really happy to have a comparison of my advisers and the work they do, paid part-time for part-time work, with Government advisers employed by the Conservative Government, who get a £45,000 increase even though they break the rules. I am happy to compare my record with anybody.

Shaun Bailey: Let us be clear, MrMayor. This is about you. It is not about the Government. Of course, this member of staff went to San Francisco. We need to know when. There are allegations that the rules were broken. Can you confirm? How does a member of staff enter the United States of America (USA)?

Sadiq Khan: It is quite clear from the letter written by the Chief Officer to the AssemblyMember - who is a mayoral candidate - that his arguments are nonsense. If the arguments were not nonsense, he would have pursued this matter further with the Chief Officer. He has not. What he is seeking to do is make cheap points here, Chair, for a short clip seen by a couple of people to try to earn some additional points. Londoners know that this is a candidate who is using lies and fantasies to try to get votes in the next election. Londoners are not stupid. They see through this.

Shaun Bailey: MrMayor, you made the comment to compare your record with the Government’s record. There is no travel corridor between the UK and the USA. I am just asking you to confirm how this member of staff entered the USA. You were very vocal about DominicCummings [former Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister] and his goings on. Please let us know what happened here. That is all I am asking.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, the proper forum for an AssemblyMember to raise issues about staff is with the Chief Officer. What I am not going to do is discuss individual members of staff employed by City Hall through Mayor’s Question Time. I am disappointed that things have got so bad for this candidate that he is using this forum to try to make cheap points. I am not going to rise to that. What I suggest he does is continue to explore this with the Chief Officer, who I am sure will respond to any correspondence he has in relation to this matter.

Tony Arbour: Chair, this is unacceptable for the Mayor constantly to refer to an election that is about to happen. He is abusing his position. There has been no suggestion from the AssemblyMember that he is a candidate or that he is involved in any part of the election. He is using this for electioneering. It is an abuse of process. I wonder, Chair, if you would rule on that.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberArbour, you have made your point. I ask the Mayor and all AssemblyMembers equally to bear in mind not to bring in the party political or election matters. Having said that, AssemblyMemberBailey, do you have any further questions about financial performance or shall we move on?

Shaun Bailey: Yes, I do, Chair, because the point of this, MrMayor, is this staff member is a senior member of staff, a political appointee who is above grade12 and so we can discuss them in this forum. You should understand that. They are part of the sign-off process with our negotiations with the Government. We have had two bailouts from TfL. We have another one coming. I am asking why you have signed off this member of staff when London is at its greatest time of need. That is what I want to know. You have gone on to say you want to compare your record to DominicCummings. Let us be very clear. There is some suggestion here, which you have been unable to rebut, that your member of staff broke the rules. As you said about DominicCummings, why should people follow the rules if he does not? We are asking the same thing about you and your member of staff. He is a highly paid member of staff who is vital to London’s financial negotiation with the Government.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberBailey, we know where you are coming from. MrMayor, for the last time, can you briefly respond to this if you want to or move on with the wider question? We cannot go any further than that. I do believe that the specific member of staff we have discussed in public, yes, we have allowed that, but we should not be going any further into this. MrMayor, do you want to respond to that?

Sadiq Khan: TonyArbour [AM] was trying to throw ShaunBailey a lifeline, which he has not taken up. I have nothing further to add.

Shaun Bailey: Chair, I am happy to stop here. If the Mayor is unable or unprepared to answer the question, Londoners will see that.

Navin Shah: Thank you very much. You have asked your question.
I am going to move on to AssemblyMemberDuvall. You have indicated, AssemblyMemberDuvall?

London’s economic recovery

Joanne McCartney: The economic figures in the Chancellor’s comprehensive spending review made for very bleak reading, just before Christmas and with further disruption possible depending on a Brexit deal. Do the Government’s plans come anywhere near meeting the support needed by London’s businesses and Londoners, considering the scale of the economic crisis we are all facing, over the coming months and years?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. No, they do not. The scale of the economic crisis facing London and the UK is enormous. UK gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 is expected to fall by a historic 11.3%. Latest figures forecast London’s economic output to fall by £44billion this year. London could also see the largest fall in employment in over 20 years with the loss of a further 350,000 jobs in 2021.
I am deeply concerned that this Government is simply not taking London’s economic importance to the rest of the country seriously. In fact, there are those within the Government who think you can narrow the gap between London and the rest of the country by starving our capital city of investment.
Of course, this is the wrong-headed approach. Whilst it is clearly right to try to support jobs and growth in the rest of the country, the Government should do so while leveraging London’s strengths and advantages, not actively working to suppress them. The Government must not be complacent about the ability of London to bounce back from the COVID crisis with our targeted policy interventions and support.
It is absolutely vital that London gets its fair share of the recently announced Levelling Up Fund not just for the future of our city but for the country as a whole. Just £22.1million of a recent £900million fund came to the capital despite us providing an extensive list of shovel-ready projects. Investment in London is investment in the UK. Crossrail, for example, is expected to generate at least £42billion for the UK and over 60% of suppliers to the project are based outside London. London is home to 13% of the population, responsible for 17% of all employment and 24% of all UK output, and is the nation’s biggest net contributor to the Exchequer.
If the Government continues with its approach of starving the capital of investment while failing to adequately support sectors at risk from the pandemic, it will severely hamper our recovery from COVID both in London and across the UK.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you, MrMayor. I agree with you entirely. One of the things that surprised me was that even though no deal has been done with the EU and Brexit negotiations are going down to the wire, there was no reference to Brexit in the [Comprehensive] Spending Review at all. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that a no-deal Brexit will hit London hard and increase prices by 1.5% at a time when Londoners are struggling to put food on the table.
What deal do Londoners need to see the Government make with the EU, even at this eleventh hour?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure it is possible this late in the day to do the deal that we need. You will be aware that 80% of our economy is in the service sector. Think of world-leading financial, legal and professional services, tech and creative industries. Those sectors will be affected by the flimsy deal the Government is trying to negotiate. They will be adversely affected by that and by no deal as well.
What we ideally wanted was access to a single market and to be members of the Customs Union. I really worry about our ability to attract talent as well as the non-tariff barriers the service sector will have to take from 1January [2021].

Joanne McCartney: Thank you. In your initial answer, you spoke about the levelling-up agenda, but it does seem that the Government is actually seeking to do that by levelling down London. As you quite rightly said, the Government did not allocate London its fair share of shovel-ready projects during the summer. For example, I am very keen that the Piccadilly line in my constituency gets its signalling upgrade, which would then increase capacity greatly.
Will Londoners see the Spending Review as levelling up or levelling down? What case are you building with stakeholders to ensure that London in the future does get its fair share of that Shared Prosperity Fund and Levelling Up Fund?

Sadiq Khan: I am really worried that there is a divide-and-rule agenda from the Government. It is trying to win votes in the north by punishing London. It is really important that we use our partners within London and across the country who know what is going on to get a better deal. Some Members of the Assembly claim to know our history. If they knew our history, they would know the importance of our city to our country’s wealth and prosperity. That is why it is really important for us to lobby the Government.
We have ordered the trains for the Piccadilly line, but without the signalling we cannot get the real benefits. By the way, the trains are not being built in London. They are being built in the north of the country. You will be aware that if we get more electric buses, these buses will be built around the country in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other parts of the country as well.
That is why we have to try to continue to persuade the Government about the importance of investing in our city. If we are not careful, the country will become more equal not by making the rest of the country wealthier but by making London poorer and the rest of the country poorer as well. We will be more equal but we will all be poorer.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you, MrMayor. Thank you, Chair.

The Affordable Homes Programme

Murad Qureshi: Is the £4 billion of Government funding for the 2021-26 Affordable Homes Programme enough to meet London’s housing need?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. No, London’s £4billion settlement from Government over five years fall far short of need. Research by the GLA and G15 published last year showed London needs £4.9billion each year for the next ten years to adequately tackle its housing crisis. Earlier this year, the final report of the COVID-19 Housing Delivery Taskforce highlighted that affordable housing funding can ensure new homes continue to be built regardless of the peaks and troughs of the private housing market, protecting jobs in the construction industry at a time when uncertainty about the labour market will impact many people.
Although I believe the size of the settlement represents a missed opportunity, I am very pleased that last month we published the Funding Guidance for the London Affordable Homes Programme 2021 to 2026, and Deputy Mayor [for Housing and Residential Development] TomCopley deserves huge credit for getting it out so quickly. Following several months of negotiation, we achieved a settlement that prioritises homes let out at social rent levels, reflecting the overwhelming need in London for the lowest-cost rental tenues. I am also proud of the progress we have made over the last four years, hitting every single delivery target in the Affordable Homes Programme for 2016 to 2023. However, the housing crisis affects too many Londoners and I will continue to work with City Hall’s delivery partners so that more people can benefit from the opportunities that come from living in a good quality, safe and affordable home.

Murad Qureshi: Thank you, Mayor. I expected you to say no but in light of what the Prime Minister said in June[2020], announcing the Government will build back better, faster, and highlighting the Affordable Homes Programme as part of it, are you disappointed that last month’s Spending Review did not give more money to London for affordable homes?

Sadiq Khan: Really disappointed but also really surprised because there is a potential to act in a counter-cyclical manner here. The Government has said this could be the deepest recession for 300 years. I think the Bank of England said that. You have seen a shrinkage in our economy from this time versus last year. Housebuilding is a way to get our economy going. Construction jobs, they will spend. When people move into a home, they will spend. It is a false economy and I hope the Government sees sense going forward.

Murad Qureshi: Yes, I agree there. Can I just add that public finances have never been cheaper, with negative interest rates? It is not so much the level of debt, it is the servicing of it, and it cannot get any cheaper than this for probably the next decade or so at least.
We also know that half the homes you want to deliver will be for social rent. Can you explain what led you to make that decision?

Sadiq Khan: What is clear from speaking to and listening to Londoners is the need for genuinely affordable homes that they can afford. I am against building luxury penthouse flats that are bought by foreigners - nothing against foreigners, some of my best friends and family are foreigners - or are left empty. It is really important that we build genuinely affordable homes, and that basically means council homes or homes at social rent. You will be aware that last year we began more council homes than any year since 1983. We are proud of that. We have to carry that progress.

Murad Qureshi: I am glad to hear that. Also, in your negotiations to spend the money, was there anything you wanted to do that they refused to agree to or was there anything they imposed on you as part of the funding that you would like to see removed?

Sadiq Khan: If you speak to Deputy Mayor TomCopley, he will show you the scars in relation to the negotiations. Yes, we were a bit concerned about the Government wanting to have final say over some of our long-term strategic partnership funding. We are also concerned that they refused to help in relation to regeneration by the replacement of homes on some estates, which is really important, and by their enthusiasm for shared ownership when you and I both know the real need is for social rent homes.
But, look, in a negotiation you do not get everything. We are just pleased we got over the line, and we now want to get on and start building these homes. We are pleased we have got the prospectus out and we are in discussions now with some really good partners about getting some started, then built, so that families can move into them.

Murad Qureshi: Yes, I am glad to hear that. As you mentioned shared ownership, I am concerned by some of the issues raised by a Panorama programme recently about how the housing associations are delivering that, on the length of the lease and the cost of the surcharges. I do hope you take that into consideration when you are making allocations. It is a critical issue for a lot of shared owners and future ones, and I think we need to get on top of it.

Sadiq Khan: Spot on. One Member of the Assembly is going on about how important shared ownership is, not recognising the downsides, as you referred to, which have not been resolved. We need to resolve those before we encourage more people to enter these. As you have said, the consequences can be quite severe and it is important people are aware of those.

Murad Qureshi: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor.

Navin Shah: Assembly Member Boff has a supplementary.

Keeping Londoners Safe at Christmas

Navin Shah: What is your message to Londoners to keep them safe but at the same time be able to celebrate the festive season?

The Mayor: [Deputy Chairman, Tony Arbour AM, in the Chair.]

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, DeputyChairman. It has been a difficult and distressing year for our city with thousands of Londoners losing their lives, countless families left grieving and millions more struggling with mental health as a result of this terrible pandemic. There has also been a catastrophic economic impact on businesses and workers. Infection rates have recently been rising in the capital and the Government has made the decision to move London into tier3. The rules Londoners are being asked to follow this Christmas are determined by the Government, but I am concerned that they may be exposing Londoners and the NHS to unnecessary risk.
I am not the only one who is concerned about this. The British Medical Journal and the Health Service Journal have also expressed concern about the Government’s relaxation plans. There is a real concern that NHS services could be overwhelmed in the new year. The Leader of the Opposition has called for the Prime Minister to urgently rethink the Christmas rules. Even [The Rt Hon] JeremyHunt [MP], former Conservative Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee, has said that the Government should listen to the scientific experts on this one.
So far, despite some confusing messages from Ministers about what they are advising people to do this Christmas, there has been no sign that the Government will change the rules it controls to give people the clarity they need. In the absence of Government leadership, I would encourage Londoners to be safe and exercise caution this Christmas. Not only am I urging Londoners to comply with the rules, but I am asking them to think very carefully about whether to do as the rules allow. The safest thing you can do is to celebrate with the people you already live with. I also want Londoners to be cautious around New Year’s Eve. I would encourage Londoners to stay home, celebrating just with the people they live with.
The sacrifices we have all made to try to get this virus under control cannot go to waste now. Coronavirus is not taking a break this Christmas. The rollout of the vaccine does not mean that we can stop playing our part to keep cases down. If we work hard to minimise the spread during this Christmas and New Year period, we will save lives and protect the people we love. I know how hard it is to have these conversations with family, but I cannot express how important it is.

Navin Shah: Thank you, MrMayor. Unfortunately, it is likely that there could be a spike in cases in the post-Christmas period. Are you worried about the NHS and particularly London hospitals becoming overwhelmed and having difficulties in coping with the health situation across the board?

Sadiq Khan: I am. Our NHS [staff] have worked incredibly hard over the last nine months. They always work incredibly hard. I spoke yesterday to the head of the London Ambulance Service and this morning I have been in contact with the NHS. In six of the seven regions across the country, we are seeing a big rise in NHS general admissions. We also know that the northeast of London has been helping our friends in Kent and Essex in relation to mutual assistance to those parts of the country. January traditionally is the busiest month of the year for the NHS. We have already seen, I am afraid, in London some ambulances having to wait in queues to get into emergency departments because of the pressure in December. That is usually a January issue. That is why it is really important we do not act in a way that inadvertently leaves the virus spreading, leading to people being hospitalised at the busiest time of the year. We still very much want, Chair, non-COVID patients to receive the care they need. I am thinking of cancer patients and other patients as well. We saw in March, April and May [2020] the consequence of non-COVID patients not receiving the care they need. It is really important that we do all that we can to stop the NHS being overwhelmed in January.

Navin Shah: MrMayor, finally, what measures do you think you and the borough councils can take to stop breaches of COVID guidelines that do not allow the mixing of households after Christmas?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, we saw last week some really good work by councils across London providing mutual aid to other councils who were having difficulties. We had central London councils providing officers to go to other parts of London. It was fantastic to see high-visibility council officers giving that messaging on busy high streets about COVID.
In January [2021] you are going to see, I am afraid, potentially, the virus spreading across all 32 boroughs. It already is, by the way. Every single borough in our city has the virus going up. This idea that you can somehow balkanise some councils is ridiculous. That is why it is really important that we continue to work as Team London. The silos have gone.
This is a really good example of London leaders, cross-party, inner and outer, working closely together with the NHS, Public Health England (PHE), City Hall and other key partners across our city. That working together will be even more important in January because we share information on a daily basis that helps us take action. We have to make sure that work carries forward in January, which could be the most difficult part of this period.

Navin Shah: Thank you, MrMayor.
[The Chair, Navin Shah AM, resumed the Chair.]

No improvements since PHE report

Onkar Sahota: Since PHE published their report and recommendations in June 2020, highlighting the impact of COVID-19 on the BAME community, we have heard nothing further from ministers regarding implementing its recommendations. Today, as we sit amid a second wave of infections in London, we know that almost a third of those admitted to intensive care are not white - showing no change since the first peak. What immediate steps should be taken to address this?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Actually, my first line says we are in tier2, which shows when the answer was written. Let me just correct that.
At the moment we are in tier3 but the numbers of positive test cases are increasing and Londoners are working tirelessly to prevent a repeat of the terrible experience we had in the first wave. I have asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for more testing and help with self-isolation for the northeast London boroughs where rates last week were increasing. This additional help has been forthcoming, I am pleased to say. I am also asking for more help across all of our city.
The idea that you can have different tiers in different parts of our city is nonsense. Anybody who suggests that does not understand our city or the virus.
Our NHS works tirelessly to care for Londoners with COVID-19 while also looking after those with other health needs. Demand for NHS services has risen in recent days, I am afraid to say. Londoners must continue to follow the rules to avoid a devastating further surge in cases at a time of year when our NHS is under increased pressure.
Following the PHE report on disproportionality, I have published my rapid review with further London-specific data and have taken action to implement the recommendations through the work of the London Recovery Board. I have also taken action to listen and engage with London’s BAME communities to make sure their views are influencing the work the Deputy Mayors and I do. The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Asian people, as seen in the first wave, is now showing in the data for positive cases. People from BAME communities are facing the most difficulties with self-isolating because they are more likely to be living in overcrowded homes where social distancing is more difficult and to be working in jobs that cannot be done from home.
The Government must step up and provide the support needed now, as well as doing much more to address the wider inequalities and structural racism that are the underlying causes of the disproportionate impacts of the virus.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor, for that response. Of course, it is now almost six months since the report was published and eight months since the inequalities effect on the BAME community became apparent in the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, even if you look at the second wave, one third of the people in intensive care units are from BAME communities, just like in the first wave. Nothing has really changed.
My real concern is of course that this a report that has been sitting on the Government’s shelf and catching dust there. There is a lack of progress. Are you concerned about how the Government has not acted upon the recommendations made in that report?

Sadiq Khan: It is inexcusable. You can almost see the Government making a defence for the first wave because it can say it did not know. There is no such defence in relation to what we are seeing now. As I said in answer to another question, as you know from personal experience, the bad news is that it is déjà vu. That is unacceptable. That is why it is really important that the Government wakes up to this and takes urgent action to address this.

Onkar Sahota: Thank you, MrMayor. I know about all the good work you are doing. The other thing is that the BAME communities are at greater risk of COVID-19 infection and complications and yet they are the very people who have the greater hesitancy in taking a vaccine.
What can we do in London to make sure that we get the messaging right and make sure that these communities are targeted? Everybody else should be taking up the vaccine, particularly the BAME community.

Sadiq Khan: You will be aware of the difference vaccines have made to survival across the globe from polio to smallpox. Certain illnesses have been almost eradicated if not eradicated.
You are right to remind me and to remind us that within our communities there is a certain amount of hesitancy, particularly amongst black Londoners and separately amongst BAME Londoners and others as well. We are not talking about COVID deniers or antivaxxers. We are talking about people who have legitimate concerns that we need to address. You have a role to play as somebody who is respected in the community and who is medically qualified to persuade people about the benefits of this vaccine. We have to do our bit to encourage Londoners who are eligible for the vaccine to take it.
The vaccine will save lives. Let us have no doubt about that. The success of the vaccine is more than 95%. That is a real gamechanger. There is light at the end of the tunnel but we have to make sure that all Londoners understand the benefits of the vaccine. We encourage Londoners who are eligible for the vaccine to take it.

Onkar Sahota: Great. Thank you, MrMayor. Thank you very much.

Avoiding Hypocrisy

Keith Prince: It is reported that you believe Kensington & Chelsea Council should repay the cost of the High Street Kensington Cycle Lane. Do you believe that Redbridge Council should also repay the cost of the Barkingside South and Cranbrook LTNs?

The Mayor: Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Thank you, Chair. I set out the London Streetspace plan to enable London’s boroughs to work with TfL to react to the coronavirus pandemic rapidly, as requested by the Government to ensure public safety. Our plan focused on enabling people to walk and cycle to get around, reflecting the reduction in capacity on public transport services as a result of social distancing and to avoid a car-based recovery which would cause congestion and impact the health of Londoners. Boroughs across London have responded with schemes to improve London’s streets. This includes temporary cycle ways, low-traffic neighbourhoods, School Streets projects, and social distancing for pedestrians at crowded places such as town centres.
As part of this, with support and funding from the DfT and Downing Street, TfL agreed to pay for the
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) to build a temporary cycle lane on Kensington High Street. The agreement was made on the basis that the scheme would be in place for a sufficient length of time for its operation to be properly assessed.
Despite observing very significant rises in cycling along the route and minimal impact on traffic, Kensington and Chelsea decided not to see the project through to completion. This includes not implementing upgrades to signals and not installing three bus stop bypasses which could have improved movement of traffic through the corridor. Kensington and Chelsea unilaterally decided to remove the scheme instead. In terms of using public money responsibly, this is clearly hard to justify.
RBKC has not yet asked to claim any of the original TfL-offered contribution and it may be that they do not. If they do, however, TfL will need to consider whether or not to make any contributions given the circumstances I have outlined. All funding of Streetspace schemes is subject to an audit process which may lead to funding being reduced, and each funding decision is taken on a case-by-case basis.
The same approach was taken with Redbridge Council’s claim for costs relating to their low-traffic neighbourhoods. Two low-traffic neighbourhoods were introduced and then removed, and in the end TfL only contributed part of the original offer. Again, we would have preferred the schemes to have been given time to bed in to assess the impacts of different choices over time.

Keith Prince: Thank you for that answer, Mr Mayor. If you are working in an even-handed manner then I have no criticism of you at all. From what you have said - and I will always believe what you tell me, Mr Mayor - RBKC have not drawn down on the money, and then of course there is no money to give back, is there? If what you say is correct, that you have only partially funded the Redbridge scheme, then that appears to be relatively even-handed. That is all I am asking for. Thank you very much for your answer, Mr Mayor.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

Travel for vulnerable passengers

Caroline Pidgeon: How will your plans to make the tube cashless support vulnerable passengers, including those without access to a bank account?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. As part of its response to the coronavirus pandemic, earlier this year TfL stopped accepting cash at ticket machines at around 200 London Underground stations, more than three quarters of the network. The change was also made at most Docklands Light Railway (DLR) stations and in London Overground and TfL Rail ticket offices. This has helped with social distancing in ticket halls and reduced the requirement for TfL staff to handle cash, helping to keep staff and customers safe. As we continue to fight the virus, TfL is considering extending cashless operation to most remaining London Underground stations and all remaining DLR stations early next year.
Ahead of any changes that may take place, TfL has been talking to key groups and organisations to address the concerns of those who might find this change challenging. This is helping to inform TfL’s equality impact assessments. TfL’s data shows cash transactions accounted for 2.2% of London Underground journeys in 2018/19. This reduced to 1.25% between July and September2020. While this is relatively low, I appreciate there are likely to be some people who rely on cash for their transactions who may be concerned about this change. This includes customers who do not have access to a bank account and prefer to pay for their travel by cash.
Customers who need to continue to pay by cash can do so at one of nearly 4,000 Oyster Ticket Stops across London. There are 62 Tube stations currently still accepting cash. The average distance to the nearest Oyster Ticket Stop is 180 metres. Before any changes are implemented, TfL will have a customer communications plan to ensure everyone is aware of the alternative ways they can pay for travel.
TfL ensures staff are fully briefed on any changes and able to advise customers, including directing customers to the nearest Oyster Ticket Stop. Staff are also trained to ensure no vulnerable customer is left stranded. This process will be broadened to include situations in which they are unable to use cash, which may be a factor in someone’s ability to travel.
TfL and I remain committed to delivering a more inclusive transport network where everyone is able to make seamless, affordable and accessible journeys. TfL will closely monitor feedback from customers and staff to ensure the impact of any changes is fully understood.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much indeed, MrMayor. There are many concerns about TfL’s plans to temporarily remove cash payments from the stations you mentioned. There are 260,000 adults in London and 1.2million in the UK without a bank account. That of course does not include those under 16 who do not have a bank account.
Are you really satisfied that full consideration has been given to the needs of adults on low incomes, children, people with restricted mobility and those for whom access to banking is restricted?

Sadiq Khan: Not yet. As usual, Mayor’s Question Time and this question from you gives me a chance to look at issues that I do not look at probably in as much detail. I am not satisfied yet.
That is why in preparation for your question, AssemblyMemberPidgeon, I have done some work and I have made sure that we are kicking the tyres more to make sure that I have the reassurance that you are rightfully making sure that I have.
Can I communicate with you and others about what further work we are doing to get the reassurance we need? You are spot on. This is an issue that affects a small minority of Londoners but, to them, it is really important.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you for that. I appreciate that. The changes do seem to rely very heavily on the availability of Oyster Ticket Stops but, as TravelWatch has highlighted, they are not always near stations, fully accessible or even open the same hours as the Tube. For example, there are 17 Underground stations where the nearest Oyster Ticket Stop, if it is open, is more than 400 metres away. Will you, as part of this, give careful consideration to, if you do go ahead with removing cash, not removing it at those particular stations because of that distance? Also, will you agree to a formal and well-publicised consultation if the decision is then made to make it permanent?

Sadiq Khan: We are in danger of all your points being good points. Yes, I am particularly concerned also. Let us say you have to travel at 6.30am but the nearest Oyster shop does not open until 9.00am. That is a problem. You are highlighting some of the things we have to address because it is these issues that can lead to huge inconvenience for that individual or their family. We have to make sure that we look into the various issues that TravelWatch has raised - that is one of the jobs it has - and that you have raised as well.
What I will ask my team to do is, in addition to meeting TravelWatch, your experience is quite useful and I will ask them to meet with you as well because you may have spotted things that you can ensure that we address in relation to our response as well.

Caroline Pidgeon: Will you agree to fully consult if there is a decision in the future to make this permanent?

Sadiq Khan: Yes. Part of the equality impact assessment is making sure that we are looking into these issues and there is a proper consultation taking place. The good news is - and I hate using the phrase ‘opportunity’ or ‘silver lining’ caused by the pandemic - that it has meant that Londoners have found alternative ways, those who have plastic credit cards or debit cards, to use public transport. We are hopeful that that has led to some progress, but we will make sure there is a proper engagement exercise. We will make sure there is a proper equality assessment.
Also, this is not a done deal for the reasons you have said. There could be reasons why there are exceptions made for some stations. I should say that for some stations that adjoin the busiest Overground stations - there are 12 of them - part of our deal with the Government is for them to continue to have certain facilities available. I will make sure we will look additionally at the points you have raised.

Caroline Pidgeon: My one final issue: during the pandemic, the Rail Delivery Group has been offering free rail travel to people fleeing domestic abuse. Will you ensure TfL plays its role and looks to provide free travel for the first part of someone’s journey when they are also fleeing domestic abuse?

Sadiq Khan: I am more than happy to look into that. I will ask my Victims Commissioner and also HeidiAlexander [Deputy Mayor for Transport] to look into this with you.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much indeed for your answers.

Green New Deal and the Ten Point Plan

Leonie Cooper: The Government’s ‘Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution’ has been criticised for not going far enough to tackle the climate emergency or to address the jobs crisis caused by Covid-191. By contrast, your Green New Deal promises to deliver on London becoming a zero-carbon, zero-pollution city by 2030 and will deliver green collar jobs growth in the recovery period. How will you achieve these challenging targets and what are milestones have been set?

1The Guardian, ‘Boris Johnson announces 10-point green plan with 250,000 jobs’ [Date accessed 24.11.2020]

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. It is good to see the Government finally taking climate action but their Ten Point Plan will not deliver on its new commitment to cut emissions by 68% by 2030.
London’s Green New Deal mission sets the goal of tackling the climate and ecological emergencies and improving air quality by doubling the value of London’s green economy by around £100billion by 2030. This will build on the foundations laid since I became Mayor, including retrofitting over 37,000 homes and 272 public sector buildings, installing solar panels on 850 homes, supporting 48 community energy projects and 19 decentralised energy projects. This builds on my pioneering Zero Carbon Homes standard, my award-winning ULEZ, divesting GLA cash assets from fossil fuels, supporting planting over 280,000 trees and two major new woodland creation projects covering 84hectares.
With the UK hosting the 26th United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) next year, it is time for the Government to adequately fund and empower cities so that they can do even more.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. I am really pleased that you are able to give me quite a long list there of all of the things that you have been doing. I wonder if you could just say a bit more about your Community Energy Fund. I know that the closing date for new applications is 11January[2021]. This is a fantastic way to involve local communities and I think it would be worth exploring that a bit.

Sadiq Khan: Yes, thanks for using this opportunity to raise awareness of this really exciting initiative. Community energy groups are strongly placed to contribute towards the Green New Deal, supporting local jobs but also supply chains in the green economy. It is important we support community projects that will provide opportunities for the development of new skills, training opportunities through the creation of local apprenticeship schemes and internships, particularly for young people and the unemployed.
As you said, I launched the fourth phase of London Community Energy. Previous rounds have supported the development of 48 community energy projects and this has led to 81 different buildings being helped. That has saved not just money, but 1,500 tonnes of carbon will be saved as a result of this just next year.

Léonie Cooper: Which is great news. I wonder if I could move on quickly to say something about London Power. It is really unfortunate that some Assembly Members have sought to undermine the progress that you have made. Obviously, we started off with London Power working with Octopus Energy, who I believe have agreed to support London Power but not even make profits for themselves. That has been grossly misrepresented by one Assembly Member. We have also discovered now that there were other Assembly Members who were pushing you toward a completely freestanding company right from the start and are now criticising you for having worked with Octopus. That seems like the height of hypocrisy to me. I just wondered if you could comment on the progress of London Power, which has been against the backdrop of the pandemic, and how things are going.

Sadiq Khan: You will be aware that I was lobbied quite aggressively by some Members of the Assembly to go down the route of other cities. I explained that one of my responsibilities was to make sure our finances were looked after and that we did not risk GLA finances by going down routes that could be really risky in relation to whether they would be a success. We decided to go down the partnership route with Octopus and London Power.
Lo and behold, we have seen other parts of the country who went down the route that I was being lobbied to by Members of the Assembly, and they are now having serious financial problems. I think I was right to have due diligence, I was right to follow the professional advice I had from my officers, and was right to ignore the representations from those Members of the Assembly. You would hope they would give credit where it is due and commend us for the stance that we took. Let us wait and see if they do so.

Léonie Cooper: I would completely agree. Let us wait and see if they can abandon their hypocrisy on this subject. Just to be absolutely clear, London Power is not just advertising for Octopus Energy, as has also been claimed by somebody else? Octopus is offering support to London Power, in fact?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. We have a very good relationship and we are trying to encourage more Londoners to move over to London Power. It is important that we address the issue - you have raised this for the last four years - of fuel poverty. The amount of Londoners who are affected by this is heart-breaking. We have to do much more to address this, and this is a really good, practical way of us addressing this.

Léonie Cooper: Absolutely. With COP26 coming through in less than a year, Mr Mayor, do you think that there is any chance that the Government is going to step up and help us do the necessary levels of insulation of our existing buildings that need to go hand in hand with moving over to greener sources of energy?

Sadiq Khan: I know many Members of the Assembly will not welcome the results in the USA, but I really welcome the election of Joe Biden. President-Elect Biden has already confirmed that they will recommit to the Paris climate agreement that was walked away from by the current President. That means that our Government now needs to follow suit. We are in a situation where our Government was being very slow and I am hoping that that is the catalyst needed to get our Government to make some rapid progress.
In the absence of the Government doing stuff, the exciting news is that cities and mayors are taking action. I was a meeting last week with the Mayor of Paris, AnneHidalgo, on the fifth anniversary of the Paris climate change agreement. There are mayors across the world and the country who are coming together to take action in this area. MikeBloomberg [former Mayor of New York City] is doing a really good job bringing us together. Also, we have managed to persuade the UN to try to give us a role in relation to addressing the issue of climate change, plus civic society and businesses as well.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you, Mr Mayor. It is great to hear that you are playing a significant role on the global platform, along with mayors of other cities. Let us just hope that the Office for Environmental Protection is able to keep us where we need to be in terms of moving forward on environmental issues after Brexit occurs. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Chair.

Navin Shah: Assembly Member Arbour has a supplementary.

In-work poverty

Florence Eshalomi: Why are in-work Londoners visiting Foodbanks in ever greater numbers?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. It is clear that the number of Londoners struggling to afford food has risen as a direct result of COVID-19, job losses, insecure employment and a significant reduction in working hours for many. Trussell Trust figures show that 50% of people accessing emergency food parcels through its network over the summer had never visited a foodbank before. London has seen the largest regional increase in foodbank usage as well as the highest increase in those claiming unemployment benefits.
We know that this problem has not been created by the pandemic and that being in work is not a guaranteed defence against food insecurity. In 2019 I commissioned the first-ever regional measure of food insecurity in the UK. It revealed that 1.5million adults were experiencing food insecurity in London, whilst 60% of those were in full-time or part-time employment. The fact is that people were being driven to rely on foodbanks and other forms of crisis support long before COVID.
Whilst we champion those organisations that are supporting Londoners during this pandemic, we must not lose sight of the need to tackle the underlying drivers of food insecurity: unemployment, underemployment, unfair pay and insecure or unpredictable work.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberEshalomi? I cannot see AssemblyMemberEshalomi. Is your microphone muted?

Community-led housing

Siân Berry: How committed are you to community-led housing?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. I firmly believe that Londoners should be able to play a leading role in building their own homes and communities, and contribute to boosting the supply of affordable housing in the capital, but they need help to do this, which is why I am taking decisive action to support the community-led housing sector to grow. I recognise that community-led housing groups face a range of challenges which have constrained the supply of new community-led homes in London in the past.
The Community-Led Housing London Hub, which I launched in 2018 and continue to fund, helps groups to overcome some of these by enabling them to access the skills, expertise and early-stage funding they need to get projects off the ground. So far, the hub has supported 90 community groups and 10 London boroughs and allocated around £1.4million in grants and specialist officer time.
Funding is clearly another clear barrier, and in 2018 I secured £38million from the Government ring-fenced for the delivery of community-led homes in the capital. This means that groups can now access the finance they need to bring their schemes to fruition. So far, around £8.3million of advance revenue and capital funding has been allocated to London Citizens’ Community Land Trust (CLT), Naked House and Rural Urban Synthesis Society (RUSS) to deliver 109 homes.
Another challenge for community groups is access to land, and I am helping to address this in a number of ways. My Small Sites Small Builders programme is playing a key role and so far both London Citizen’s CLT and Crystal Palace CLT have successfully bid for sites through this initiative. We have also taken a unique approach at the St Ann’s development in Haringey by setting aside 50 homes for community-led housing. This will enable members of the community to own and control some of the homes of this flagship development and make St Ann’s one of the largest community-led housing schemes in London.
These practical initiatives are underpinned by an ambitious target set out in my London Housing Strategy to work with community-led organisations to identify a pipeline of schemes that have capacity to deliver at least 1,000 homes by 2021. I am pleased to say we have exceeded that target early with a pipeline of 1,248 homes. By helping community-led groups play a leading role in developing and managing new homes, I hope we can all benefit from housing built by all Londoners.

Siân Berry: Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. First of all, can I just check? You have Christmas lights in your office plants back there, do you not? That is very nice and very festive. I have some of mine up as well today. I wish more Assembly Members were doing that. It is important to be festive despite the hard times that we all face, and Merry Christmas to you.

Sadiq Khan: You too.

Siân Berry: Going back to community-led housing, which you know I feel very strongly about supporting, I thank you for that summary and it does correlate with the numbers that I have been trying to put together, trying my best to find every home that is in the programme. In terms of homes that have received funding so far, we are at 129 homes. If you add in the St Ann’s 50 that have just been announced you get to your 179, which is the number you have me. That is nowhere close to what was said in 2019 when you launched the £38million fund to get to 500 homes by 2023. We are not at the pipeline of 1,000 homes. 129 is way off getting that ready for this coming year of 2021, and in the Olympic Park there is nothing at all and that is the original place Londoners really wanted to see these kinds of homes.
Can you tell us what will get you spending this more quickly? Why did you not ask for more funding from the Government in your request to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR)?

Sadiq Khan: You raise a number of different points. Let us deal with each of them. We have in the pipeline 1,248 homes. That is more than the 1,000 target we had by 2021. You will be aware of the issues there are in relation to bringing people together, the support they need, the expertise they need, the funding they need, and the land they need. We are helping different communities across London to do this. You are also aware that CLTs and community-led homes are not on a massive scale. They tend to be small pockets of homes across London, so it does take some time.
In relation to the CSR, it was a one-year CSR, as the Chancellor announced at the last minute, and the monies we have allocated are more than one year. They go to 2023. The money that we have, the £38million which I mentioned --

Siân Berry: 65% of it remains unspent at the present time. That is what is worrying me.

Sadiq Khan: Your criticism is that we should bid for more money for one year, when we have money taking us forward. One of the things we are doing through the hub, which I thought you welcomed, was to encourage people to come together and give them the support and practical help they need. If it is the case that you are aware of communities, whether it is co-housing or CLTs, who are simply waiting for assistance, we can provide the assistance, but we have exceeded our target, 1,000 versus 1,248, and we will continue to work with communities across London.

Siân Berry: There are some barriers and sticking points. For example, Croydon Council were nearly releasing sites for CLTs but they are more or less restricted from doing anything at the moment. We have seen problems in Tower Hamlets, for example. Some community groups seem to be on the verge of pulling out because their seed funding is running out. I hope there is more that you can do, more staffing that you can put into this to try to unblock some of these schemes as quickly as you possibly can.

Navin Shah: Thank you, Assembly Member Berry, you are out of time.

Air pollution above WHO limits

Caroline Russell: Are you concerned that London’s air still contains particulate matter above World Health Organisation (WHO) limits?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Yes. We know that poor air quality remains the biggest environmental risk to health and yesterday the Coroner concluded that air pollution played a role in the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in 2013. This must be a turning point so that other families do not have to suffer the same heartbreak as Ella’s family.
I have taken bold action to tackle air pollution in London. The changes I have made since 2016 have led to a 94% reduction in the number of Londoners living in areas exceeding legal limits of nitrogen dioxide and a 97% reduction in the number of state schools in areas exceeding these limits.
However, despite a 15% reduction in particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) since 2016, 99% of Londoners still live in areas exceeding the World Health Organization (WHO) PM2.5 guidelines.
I am proud that London was the first major world city to make the Breathe Life pledge to achieve WHO PM2.5 guidelines by 2030. I have adopted this target in my Environment Strategy. A Greater London Authority (GLA) report published in October2019 showed that through the delivery of my policies and with additional powers and funding, it is possible for London to meet this target. Road transport is the largest individual source of local PM2.5 emissions. I have taken real action to tackle this, including accelerating the introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in 2019, cleaning up the bus and taxi fleets, and investing hugely in walking and cycling.
However, I have more limited powers to tackle non-transport sources of PM2.5, which account for around 70% of local emissions. This includes construction machinery, woodburning, river vessels and commercial cooking. Much of the PM2.5 measured in London comes from sources outside of the city, meaning a national approach is needed. Alongside other city leaders, I continue to call on the Government to use the Environment Bill to make the WHO PM2.5 guidelines legally binding and provide the new powers needed to clean up our polluted cities by 2030.
London is on track to meet legal pollution limits for nitrogen dioxide by 2025, a milestone that will have taken 193 years but for our policies over the last four and half years on air quality.

Caroline Russell: Thank you, MrMayor. Today is the day after RosamundAdoo-Kissi-Debrah, a brave and very remarkable woman who campaigned for years, had toxic air, mainly from traffic, recognised as the cause of her daughter Ella’s death back in 2013. This changes everything for elected members at every level of government. All of us in this virtual chamber and those of us also elected as councillors and Members of Parliament (MPs) must now think how we can help protect the Londoners we represent from the harm posed by traffic, tyre wear and exhaust emissions. Ella’s case shows we need action that cuts pollution in London rapidly. The main lever you, MrMayor, and local authorities have on this is to cut motor traffic. As the TfL independent review put it last week:
“Road user charging can discourage private vehicle use and encourage public transport use, reducing congestion and improving air quality.”
Your Transport Strategy does have a traffic reduction target, but it aims for just a reduction of 10% to 15% by 2041. That is 20 years away. Will you strengthen your traffic reduction target and bring it forward as part of planning for any future road user charging?

Sadiq Khan: I say this respectfully; you have taken two minutes to ask a question there. Give me some time to answer it.
We have set out a number of plans already, which are leading to real change. I gave you the evidence from King’s College [London], which is that rather than it taking 195 years, it will take us five years to bring our air within legal lawful limits because of our policies. You will be aware that even bringing the ULEZ forward was very controversial. Many in the Assembly opposed me doing so. We are going to extend that to the North Circular and the South Circular, which means 96% of London will be covered by that policy. I would rather do something now than do something in five years’ time. No major city in the world is using road user charging. There are big questions about the technology as it is. To get the ULEZ rolled out to the North Circular and the South Circular by next October [2021] is going to be a big challenge. We are already, as you will be aware, rolling it out across all of London for the big vehicles as well. We have also seen a major transformation in relation to us trying to lead to modal shift, avoiding a car-led recovery and encouraging people to use public transport safely where they can and to walk and cycle as well. What is really important is that we persuade the Government to provide us with the additional powers and resource we need.

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, the conclusions of the TfL independent review say that you should not just investigate a Greater London boundary charge but also a distance-based scheme with new technology, which is something I have long advocated for. To be very clear, all your charges currently are area-based, but that does not help reduce miles driven. Once an area charge is paid, there is no incentive to drive less that day.
Will you look at smart distance-based options, which will actually help reduce pollution, especially for people living by main roads?

Sadiq Khan: We are in danger of making an argument where there is not one. My Transport Strategy, which I can send to you, already makes it quite clear that we are going to explore those sorts of technologies. I have already made it quite clear that the concern is that we are not quite ready in relation to the technologies.
What we are doing is going on with what we can to make speedy change. You will be aware that because of our policies, we have already reduced the amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in our city, particulate matter (PM) and carbon. You have seen the numbers in relation to 94% fewer homes in areas where the air is unlawful and the 97% reduction in relation to schools.
What is wrong is for you to give the impression we are against that technology. We are looking into it and my Transport Strategy is quite clear about that.

Caroline Russell: OK. I am glad you are looking into it. Thank you. What I am worried about is that Londoners are going to look at all the actions they have been told about on air pollution and think that the problem is actually solved. I warned you back in 2017 in my response to the original consultation on the wider ULEZ that all of London was breathing air with particulates that are above WHO limits. Time is running out. We need to get on with cutting traffic, not raising it with things like the Silvertown Tunnel, but I have no further questions. I am out of time.

Navin Shah: Thank you. AssemblyMemberCooper?

Exams 2021

Jennette Arnold: The Government recently announced their contingency plans for the 2021 exams period. Do you think these plans are sufficient for students in London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Students due to take exams are experiencing considerable anxiety after missing months of teaching and face uncertainty as the pandemic continues. The Government has announced a package of measures to support students taking exams next year. However, students have already had to wait a full term for these plans and will have to wait until January or early February[2021] for information on which topics will be covered. The Government must prioritise the development of a back-up plan to avoid another last-minute exams U-turn.
I am pleased the Government has responded to my calls and announced the introduction of weekly rapid COVID-19 tests to secondary schools and colleges in England from January. The Government must ensure teachers and young people who are due to take exams have priority access to COVID-19 testing and prompt results to minimise disruption for students who would otherwise have to self-isolate.
Alongside the Government’s proposals for more generous grading next year, our most disadvantaged students must be given extra support to catch up on lost learning. The effect of the pandemic on London’s children and young people will continue to be beyond exams next summer and the Government needs a long-term plan to ensure a whole generation is not left behind.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you, Mr Mayor, for your answer. I just want to focus on the package of measures and the need for catch-up that you have spoken about. Mr Mayor, some work done in my office shows that the majority of the catch-up funding has not been received in areas with the most disadvantaged pupils. There is no guarantee that those most disadvantaged will receive the right level of catch-up tuition, and even if they targeted it in the right place, the amount of money is just not enough.
Let me just share it with you quickly. Some work done in my office shows that when you compare the money received by Richmond upon Thames - one of the richest boroughs in the city, with the second-lowest number of children on free school meals in London at just over 2,000 - versus that received by Tower Hamlets, who on the other end have the highest number of children on free school meals at over 15,000, Richmond ended up with 644% more whilst Tower Hamlets only received about 68% more funding in the catch-up programme, compared to Richmond. This cannot be fair. Clearly, this fund is missing out those children most in need.
As you said, and I totally agree, if we do not do something urgently then thousands of children across the city will experience a learning loss which will be added to the disadvantages they already have to deal with, day in, day out, and that will definitely impact on their life chances. Will you look to see if you can write to Government? I know that it takes a long time to get a response back from the Department for Education, but it has to be raised with them that their catch-up fund and some of their packages and measures for supporting disadvantaged children have just not reached the spot. I do hope that you can do this.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I would just say that the issues raised by the Member are really worrying because they will widen inequalities that exist already in our city. We are all aware of the difference education can make as a social ladder for progression. I will ask my office to liaise with Assembly Member Arnold’s office to get the data and the research she has done, and I will be making urgent representations to [The Rt Hon] GavinWilliamson [CBE MP, Secretary of State for Education] to address this anomaly. We are not against kids in Richmond getting this catch-up support, not at all. The issue is making sure that other children across our city who may not have laptops, may not have decent wi-fi connections, may have missed out on lots of classes because of bubbles being sent home and may do less well in their GCSE exams, A-Levels and other exams than they should do, are getting the help they need. I will make those representations urgently and work with Assembly Member Arnold’s office to get that data to the Government as well, so they can see the inequalities potentially getting worse.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you so much, and thank you for pointing that out. My colleague, the Deputy Chair of the Assembly, knows of my fondness for his borough. In fact, if I were staying on I would even consider going over and challenging him for that seat. No, it is about the stark differences in our city. We have to be working towards narrowing and eradicating those differences, not for Government policy to widen them. Thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you.

Londoners' Needs

Susan Hall: How have you adapted your priorities to meet the needs of Londoners since the pandemic began?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Chair. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the profound impact COVID-19 has had on Londoners’ lives, the disproportionate impact it has had on certain communities and the significant impact that measures to control the virus are having on businesses and the economy. Central London’s retail, hospitality, leisure and cultural businesses continue to suffer greatly alongside local high streets and, despite the welcome news of a vaccine, we still have a long winter ahead of us. We must all continue to play our part to keep ourselves and others safe.
Working closely with London boroughs, businesses and the voluntary sector, my priority has been to respond to the pandemic and put in place measures to support communities and the economy. During the first lockdown, we safely accommodated thousands of rough sleepers by securing hotel rooms for them to socially isolate in and co-ordinated delivery of emergency food aid to Londoners in urgent need. I have launched an initiative to support businesses facing uncertainty and financial losses including the London Business Hub, Pay It Forward London, the Recover and Grow programme, the London Resilience Fund, the Culture at Risk business support fund, the Property Advice Service and the peer network scheme. I have lobbied the Government to provide more financial help for the hardest-hit sectors, extend the business rates holiday, abandon the decision to end value-added tax (VAT) free shopping and develop a long-term plan to address the unprecedented jobs crisis this pandemic could still yet cause.
My London COVID Business Forum has set out a practical roadmap to support the reopening and recovery of London’s economy over the coming months. I have also commissioned major research into how COVID-19 and emerging trends will impact on the Central Activity Zone and northern Isle of Dogs in the medium to long term.
To co-ordinate London’s economic and social recovery, together with London Councils, I have set up the London Recovery Board. This partnership takes in membership from public, private and voluntary sectors across the city. We have developed nine missions, setting out our recovery priorities to build back better the city’s economy and society. These are being developed through unprecedented engagement with Londoners.
This crisis means we are facing increased costs with responding to the crisis combined with significant lost revenue, with the Government forcing the GLA group to make cuts of nearly £500million over the next two years to cover this shortfall. My budget repurposing exercise supports London’s recovery while protecting the key projects, programmes and frontline services that Londoners rely on.

Susan Hall: Thank you, MrMayor. You mentioned the money at the end of that statement. You also mentioned at the start of this meeting that your twin priorities are keeping Londoners safe and supporting our city out of the economic challenges that it faces. You have recently allocated around £250,000 to fund your Commission to look at statues, street names and other public realm features. Given what you said earlier, do you really think that this is a priority at this time?

Sadiq Khan: We saw during the pandemic there was an issue raised by DavidKurten [AM] in relation to Black Lives Matter and his concern about protests leading to the virus spreading and his concern more so about policing, which is not directly relevant to your question. It is an issue that concerns many Londoners, our public realm and whether we have sufficient diversity in the public realm. It is right to look into issues like squares, street names, blue plaques, statues and other ways to memorialise the contribution made by Londoners of different backgrounds, whether they are women, whether they are black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) Londoners, whether they are from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, plus (LGBTQ+) community, whether they are disabled Londoners. By asking for various people with expertise to come forward and join the Commission, we can leverage in additional support from other sectors to make sure our city properly reflects the contribution made by our diverse population.

Susan Hall: We talked about protests earlier. Do you think that there is a pattern in the way you deal with protests in London? If you think about it, Extinction Rebellion protestors caused absolute chaos. They blocked roads. They cost the MPS millions. You called them allies. You also invited them in for a meeting. People took to the streets during the pandemic, vandalised statues of Churchill and Lincoln and the Cenotaph, and you announced a Commission to look at taking down the statues. Do these actions effectively legitimise the more extreme behaviours of these protests?

Sadiq Khan: I am sorry if you do not think the brutal murder of GeorgeFloyd had an impact on the lives of Londoners. Many Londoners I spoke to, particularly black Londoners, were traumatised by what they saw in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is not unique to those parts of America or to the USA. Black lives do matter.
It is important to address racism, inequality and discrimination. I applaud those sportsmen and women who are taking the knee at sporting events. I criticise unequivocally those people who boo footballers who take the knee. It does matter setting the right tone. It does matter seeing people in a position of power and influence who look like them, whether it is people wanting to be the Mayor, whether it is the Mayor or whether it is a public street being named after people, whether it is murals, whether it is blue plaques, whether it is statues. The campaign is one that is asking people to recognise there is racism, discrimination and inequality. The Commission is going to be looking at our public realm and seeing whether it does properly reflect our society and whether there should be some changes.
I will give you one example of a change we have introduced that I am really proud of, which was opposed by some members of the Assembly: the first statue of a woman in Parliament Square, MillicentFawcett. There are 11 statues of great people. None of them were women. The campaign led by CarolineCriadoPerez
[British activist] and others led to that statue being unveiled in Parliament Square. I am really proud of that.

Susan Hall: Are you? You were asked in June [2020] whether the Commission would lead to some existing statues being taken down. You told the BBC, “I hope so”. Are you prejudging what the Commission may recommend?

Sadiq Khan: No, I was asked for my view. That is why I am not part of the Commission. The Commission has experts who will be providing advice. We have already seen across London some people who own statues deciding voluntarily to remove them. We have seen across London people - who I am not responsible for - making the decision to consult in relation to changing the names of streets. That is part of the process of us making sure that we have a well-rounded view of our history. There is nothing wrong with that.

Susan Hall: MrMayor, I completely support any effort there is to add to and to widen our history, to shed light on the past and to celebrate those deserving people who have not been celebrated before. There is no doubt about that. Whether spending money on this right now as a priority is quite another matter. Our history is our history, warts and all, for better or for worse. While you may well be thinking to add to our history, you do not get to rewrite it, to challenge it or to diminish it.
Would you accept that this is not your call but is the call of London over time to shape itself, not you or your Commission?

Sadiq Khan: The fundamental difference that you and I have is that I accept that our history is written by historians and others. Often, in my view, those people have their own inherent prejudices that can lead to a view of history that may not be rounded. It is really important to have a rounded view of history. When I went to school in London, nobody taught me history lessons in school about the legacy of the transatlantic slavery. I was not taught about the important black role models there were. That does not mean there were not any impressive black people‑‑

Susan Hall: MrMayor, if I may just interrupt you, it is very nice hearing about your past, but we have only a certain amount of‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Chair, this is the classic situation. We have a three-minute speech and the answer is not liked by the Member and so she interrupts me. You cannot have it both ways. It is a very British thing --

Susan Hall: No, you were talking to me about your‑‑

Navin Shah: One person at a time, please.

Susan Hall: MrMayor‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Does history not tell you that?

Susan Hall: ‑‑ I am stopping you. I am very happy to hear about your history but not on the timer and it is my time. What I say in my time is up to me.

Sadiq Khan: I am surprised you were not taught the history about respectfully answering a question.

Navin Shah: Order.

Susan Hall: No, I do not like you destroying or attempting to destroy the history and what has happened in the past of London because very many Londoners are proud of different parts of our history. What happened in the past, whether it was good or bad, refers to the past. You cannot change it, whoever you think you are or what you might do. History is history.

Navin Shah: A question, please.

Susan Hall: Leave our statues alone and leave our placenames alone. Thank you, Chair.

Navin Shah: All right. Let us‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Chair, can I ask for some clarity? Is this going to be a situation where Conservative Members make speeches and do not wait for the answer or will there actually be questions that I can respond to? I am guided by you, Chair.

Navin Shah: You made a legitimate point. My problem is that at times, as people are virtually participating, I am unable to stop. I have tried and I will keep on trying, but all I can say is to request again and again to the Members as well as to you, MrMayor, that this is about questions and answers. Yes, you may want to build up a bit of a scenario for your questions, but please do not go into making speeches. This is not a debating chamber for that. This is questions and answers. This is my request to everyone. I am not identifying any particular individual in terms of blaming them.
If we can move on, also, I have been reflecting about what AssemblyMemberBacon said and that was about calling Members names or calling them liars. It does not help the reputation of the Assembly and elected Members. If there are differences of opinion, if there are straightforward interpretations or propaganda put about which is not quite supported by facts, fair enough, bring that up, but do not, please, call other colleagues liars or disrespect them in that sort of manner.